News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:No to Chrome by jmstfv on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:19AM (#21720795)
I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video).

I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode.

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44872

Re:No to Chrome by mrpopo on Friday December 06, 2019 @08:25AM (#21721543)
The comments from [email protected] in this bug report are scary.

"We're not doing as the spec tells us to, BUT that probably gives us performance gains, most users don't care about it anyway, I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead (!?)..."

Why so much resistance?

Re:No to Chrome by Izkata on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:42AM (#21722127)
> most users don't care about it anyway

Our designer was pissed off when we discovered this bug, which explained why Chrome was the only program that displayed RGB values differently from all the others (not just browsers). She'd been careful about standardizing and tweaking colors we already used to work better for people with colorblindness, much of which was thrown out the window on Chrome. Not to mention issues matching the PNGs and SVGs she created for the site.

Quick edit:

> Why so much resistance?

Comment 34:

> Chromium developers have previously stated this won't be supported for reasons mentioned in this old post.

> https://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/

From that link (posted in 2006):

> The big hurdle that we ran into, though, was with the drawing we did not control, namely the Flash plug-in. The problem is that designers specify colors in Flash and colors in CSS in the Web page, and they expect those colors to match. Because Flash’s drawing isn’t correcting to sRGB, if we did it in Safari, there would be color mismatches all over the place. These mismatches look far worse than if we just don’t correct at all.

Isn't Flash gone from Chrom(ium) now?

Re:No to Chrome by Kovah on Friday December 06, 2019 @10:32AM (#21722618)
> I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead

Wow. Just wow. I have rarely seen so much ignorance. And this exactly why Chrome is cancer for the whole internet. I mean, seriously, why should the web developers fix something that is standardized just to make it work in Chrome? And fixing the JPEG standard...?

Re:No to Chrome by leeoniya on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:47AM (#21720959)
that bug is closed as dupe of [1] which is marked fixed, though it's not clear to me whether the fix was to implement a flag that enables proper rendering or to do it properly by default.

[1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=667431

Re:No to Chrome by theandrewbailey on Friday December 06, 2019 @08:41AM (#21721646)
I started using Firefox in 2004, and never stopped using it as a main driver since.
Re:No to Chrome by fastball on Friday December 06, 2019 @08:52AM (#21721718)
Uhm. Is that somehow relevant to OC's comment?
Re:No to Chrome by qxnqd on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:20AM (#21720800)
Try Safari and/or Brave
Re:No to Chrome by jmstfv on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:24AM (#21720818)
I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.
Re:No to Chrome by thejohnconway on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:28AM (#21720840)
But Safari still supports extensions, surely? I’m using it with extensions, there are not stories I can see about them removing support, and their Développement pages are still up.
Re:No to Chrome by tyingq on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:36AM (#21720907)
Their apis only support declarative static blocking lists. No heuristics, right click to block, IAB ad size detection, etc. Similar to what chrome plans to do with manifest v3.

Advertisers are already figuring out how to get around that. CNAME cloacking, proxying with same domain, etc.

Re:No to Chrome by jakelazaroff on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:07AM (#21721831)
But on the other hand, it prevents malicious extensions from exfiltrating your browsing data.
Re:No to Chrome by Karunamon on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:27AM (#21722002)
A powered off computer is completely unhackable.

This idea of removing usability in the name of safety has gone way, way too far. It was crap when Mozilla did it, it's crap when Apple does it.

Re:No to Chrome by jakelazaroff on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:02PM (#21723686)
Privacy is half the point of an ad blocker. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to enforce privacy constraints on something that ostensibly protects your privacy.
Re:No to Chrome by tyingq on Friday December 06, 2019 @02:17PM (#21725048)
Given that both Safari and Chrome will continue to allow extensions to inject arbitrary JavaScript into any web page, I don't buy the privacy angle.
Re:No to Chrome by S_A_P on Friday December 06, 2019 @07:37AM (#21721238)
More specifically, they blocked extensions that work a certain way. The deal breaker for me was when uBlock origin was no longer able to run. I immediately switched to Firefox and Brave.
Re:No to Chrome by FussyZeus on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:06AM (#21721826)
I have uBlock running on Safari...? Newest version. Or is uBlock not the same as uBlock origin?
Re:No to Chrome by scholia on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:23AM (#21721955)
No, uBlock is not the same as uBlock Origin.

Quote:

In July 2018, uBlock.org was acquired by AdBlock,[19] and began allowing "Acceptable Ads",[20] a program run by Adblock Plus that allows some ads which are deemed "acceptable", and the publisher pays Adblock Plus.[21]

EndQuote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin

Re:No to Chrome by FussyZeus on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:27AM (#21722001)
Well, damnit. Thanks for the info.
Re:No to Chrome by MichaelConlon on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:28AM (#21722010)
They are not the same product[1].

uBlock was the original tool but was handed over to another maintainer some time ago. The original developer of uBlock, being unhappy with the direction of the tool, forked the repo and made uBlock Origin which he maintains and is often considered the better product by people here

[1]https://ublock.org/faq/

Re:No to Chrome by saagarjha on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:54AM (#21721009)
Safari does still support extensions, but they operate differently now.
Re:No to Chrome by vehemenz on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:42AM (#21722130)
True, but the extension ecosystem is poor now.

1. Extensions in the app store are not easily searchable. They aren't indexed/sorted on the store properly, and many only show up on Google.

2. Many of the good extensions are no longer available, e.g., UBO and KeePass, Vimium (there is a Vim extension, but it's a poor replacement so far).

3. The store promotes junkware and throwaway extensions.

Re:No to Chrome by sparkywolf on Friday December 06, 2019 @08:55AM (#21721734)
Literally the day Firefox finds the way to be able to use all my passwords in keychain/suggest and generate new ones, I'm switching to it full time. I loved safari, but killing extensions is crossing a line.
Re:No to Chrome by digitarald on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:52AM (#21722215)
Password generation landed in 69, right?

Latest on Keychain sopport is in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106400#c130 as WONTFIX due to macOS changes.

Re:No to Chrome by sparkywolf on Friday December 06, 2019 @11:18AM (#21723141)
Still holding out hope. I'll have to look into the suggestions again then! Maybe I could figure out a way to migrate keychain
Re:No to Chrome by qxnqd on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:25AM (#21720824)
Then go with Brave. They stripped out the Google bits, and they won't remove support for the current uBlock Origin ad blocker.
Re:No to Chrome by delosII on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:55AM (#21721017)
Plus,[0]Brave is going to block [1]CNAME Cloaking first-party trackers, AFAIK no other browser, not[2]add-on, has or plan to have such blocking capabilities.

[0] https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21604825

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698

Re:No to Chrome by y4mi on Friday December 06, 2019 @07:32AM (#21721202)
It also sells your eyeballs by allowing certain adds after they've been paid.

It's basically racketeering.

If you're keen on using chromium with manifest v2 add-ons, Vivaldi and Microsoft edge are both options to keep in mind.

Re:No to Chrome by delosII on Friday December 06, 2019 @08:20AM (#21721509)
Brave won't be affected by manifest v3 though

https://twitter.com/brave/status/1088914000379731970

Re:No to Chrome by qxnqd on Friday December 06, 2019 @07:47AM (#21721303)
That is opt-in.

Edge hasn't been released yet.

Vivaldi UI is a buggy and slow mess (I invite you to try it yourself)

Re:No to Chrome by frosted-flakes on Friday December 06, 2019 @08:13AM (#21721467)
Edge-ium is about to be released. It's very stable. I've been using the preview for months.
Re:No to Chrome by garraeth on Friday December 06, 2019 @11:04AM (#21722972)
I use Vivaldi alongside Chrome for dev, and from that perspective (for the other devs here on HN) they seem like clones of each other. Both running the same JS engine and dev tools.
Re:No to Chrome by thefreeman on Friday December 06, 2019 @07:53AM (#21721334)
the [2] link states that ublock origin in firefox already supports this. did you even read it or just copy paste from someone elses brave fanboy comment.
Re:No to Chrome by delosII on Friday December 06, 2019 @08:18AM (#21721496)
Snarky comment aside, I'd suggest you to re-read my post, i specifically wrote "not add-on"
[dead]
Re:No to Chrome by delosII on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:04AM (#21721810)
I had no intention to promote or advertise brave, nor am i affiliated or working for the brave browser. if that's what you imply.
Re:No to Chrome by floren on Friday December 06, 2019 @10:26AM (#21722555)
But do you hodl BAT?
Re:No to Chrome by aledthemathguy on Friday December 06, 2019 @07:04AM (#21721059)
Just curious: why would I need ublock origin if I am using Brave (which is already blocking ads)? Thx
Re:No to Chrome by qxnqd on Friday December 06, 2019 @07:11AM (#21721096)
I use it because I've written many filters for my favourite websites. Also you can use lists which can block even more things. In my case I've blocked all social network bullshit, including icons, share buttons, widgets, etc
Re:No to Chrome by scholia on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:46AM (#21722155)
Why Brave rather than the Epic Privacy Browser?

(They are both based on Chromium....)

Re:No to Chrome by robbrown451 on Friday December 06, 2019 @01:34PM (#21724684)
Because Epic is purely "private browsing" a.k.a. constant "porn mode." Painful to use at sites you want to remember you.
Re:No to Chrome by jacobmoe on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:21AM (#21721938)
I'm loving pihole https://pi-hole.net/
Re:No to Chrome by msla on Friday December 06, 2019 @09:36AM (#21722079)
Pi Hole is a good first layer, but good sites occasionally have bad shit on them, so you can't rely entirely on host-based blocking.
Re:No to Chrome by dual_basis on Friday December 06, 2019 @02:39PM (#21725245)
But they rarely host the bad shit themselves, so it still is easily blockable.
Re:No to Chrome by skunkpocalypse on Friday December 06, 2019 @06:21AM (#21720806)
Brave is Chrome(ium)